Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
- Nurse absence in the workplace is my clinical issue which need to be addressed (Moral distress and ethics in the workplace, n.d).
- Nurses become absent form their workplace for a number of reasons and this might affect patient care
I looked at my clinical issue and decided to develop a PICOT question to help address the issue
The PICOT question was “How Could motivation and support of the Nurses staff reduce absenteeism in the hospital through out the year?
P-is the population standing for nurse, I-Is the intervention which is motivations and support of nurses, O- is the outcome which is reduction of absenteeism and T-Is time which is the whole year.
Assignment: EBP Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
Your quest for a new car begins with a determination of the factors that are most important to you. While conducting a search of vehicles that score highly on those factors, you gather evidence and attempt to comprehend the scope of that evidence. A report indicating that a particular make and model of automobile gets excellent mileage is encouraging. However, who authored that report? How credible is it? How were the data collected, and how large a sample size was used?
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
In this Assignment, you will delve deeper into clinical inquiry by closely examining your PICO(T) question. You also begin to analyze the evidence you have collected.
To Prepare:
- Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
- Develop a PICO(T) question to address the clinical issue of interest you identified in Module 2 for the Assignment. This PICOT question will remain the same for the entire course.
- Use the key words from the PICO(T) question you developed and search at least four different databases in the Walden Library.
Identify at least four relevant systematic reviews or other filtered high-level evidence, which includes meta-analyses, critically-appraised topics (evidence syntheses), critically-appraised individual articles (article synopses). The evidence will not necessarily address all the elements of your PICO(T) question, so select the most important concepts to search and find the best evidence available.
- Reflect on the process of creating a PICO(T) question and searching for peer-reviewed research.
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project) Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:
- Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.
- Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest.
- Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
- Provide APA citations of the four relevant peer-reviewed articles at the systematic-reviews level related to your research question. If there are no systematic review level articles or meta-analysis on your topic, then use the highest level of evidence peer reviewed article.
- Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples.
By Day 7 of Week 5 of Assignment: EBP Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
Submit Part 2 of your Evidence-Based Project.
Submission and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
- Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK5Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
- Click the Week 5 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
- Click the Week 5 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
- Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK5Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
- If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
- Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 5 Assignment Rubric
Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
To check your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
Submit your Week 5 Assignment Draft and review the originality report
Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 5
To participate in this Assignment:
Week 5 Assignment
Next Module
Module 3: Advanced Clinical Inquiry and PICO(T) Questions (Weeks 4-5)
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). The Value of Clinical Inquiry [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
| Due By | Assignment |
| Week 4, Days 1-2 | Read the Learning Resources. Compose your initial Discussion post. |
| Week 4, Day 3 | Post your initial Discussion post. Begin to compose your Assignment. |
| Week 4, Days 4-5 | Review peer Discussion posts. Compose your peer Discussion responses. Continue to compose your Assignment. |
| Week 4, Day 6 | Post two peer Discussion responses. Continue to compose your Assignment. |
| Week 4, Day 7 | Wrap up Discussion. |
| Week 5, Days 1-6 | Continue to compose your Assignment. |
| Week 5, Day 7 | Deadline to submit your Assignment. |
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Create an answerable research question using the PICO(T) question format
- Apply effective search strategies to identify relevant peer-reviewed and systematic reviewed research
- Analyze strategies to increase rigor and effectiveness of database searches for PICO(T) questions
- Analyze levels of evidence in peer-reviewed research
Learning Resources
Note: To access this module’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.
Required Readings
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.
- Chapter 2, “Asking Compelling Clinical Questions” (pp. 33–54)
- Chapter 3, “Finding Relevant Evidence to Answer Clinical Questions” (pp. 55–92)
Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the evidence based practice question: A review of the frameworks for LIS professionals. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8WS5N
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Asking the clinical question: A key step in evidence-based practice. American Journal of Nursing, 110(3), 58–61. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000368959.11129.79
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Step by step: Igniting a spirit of inquiry. American Journal of Nursing, 109(11), 49–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000363354.53883.58
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010b). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Searching for the evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(5), 41–47. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000372071.24134.7e
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Required Media
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Searching the Evidence [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following: · Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest. · Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest. · Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected. · Provide APA citations of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected. · Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples. | Points Range: 81 (81%) – 90 (90%)
The presentation clearly and accurately identifies and describes in detail the chosen clinical issue of interest. The presentation clearly and accurately describes in detail the developed PICO(T) question. The presentation clearly and accurately identifies four or more research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected. The presentation clearly and accurately provides full APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including a thorough and detailed explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. The presentation includes specific and relevant examples that fully support the research. The presentation provides a complete, detailed, and accurate synthesis of two outside resources related to the peer-reviewed articles selected, and fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the presentation. |
Points Range: 72 (72%) – 80 (80%)
The presentation accurately identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest. The presentation accurately describes the developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen clinical issue of interest. The presentation accurately identifies at least four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected. The presentation accurately provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an adequate explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. The presentation includes relevant examples that support the research presented. The presentation provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the peer-reviewed articles selected. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the presentation. |
Points Range: 63 (63%) – 71 (71%)
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest. The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen clinical issue of interest. The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies at least four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected. The presentation inaccurately or vaguely provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an inaccurate or vague explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. The presentation includes inaccurate or vague examples to support the research presented. The presentation provides a vague or inaccurate synthesis or outside resources related to the peer-reviewed articles selected. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 62 (62%)
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest or is missing. The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question, or is missing. The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies less than four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected or is missing. The presentation inaccurately and vaguely provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an inaccurate and vague explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research, or is missing. The presentation includes inaccurate and vague examples to support the research presented or is missing. The presentation provides a vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources related to the articles selected and fails to integrate any resources to support the presentation or is missing. |
|
| Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided, which delineates all required criteria. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive. |
Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion are provided. |
|
| Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||
Name: NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric
Part 2 Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry
Your quest to purchase a new car begins with an identification of the factors important to you. As you conduct a search of cars that rate high on those factors, you collect evidence and try to understand the extent of that evidence. A report that suggests a certain make and model of automobile has high mileage is encouraging. But who produced that report? How valid is it? How was the data collected, and what was the sample size?
In this Assignment, you will delve deeper into clinical inquiry by closely examining your PICO(T) question. You also begin to analyze the evidence you have collected.
To Prepare:
- Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
- Develop a PICO(T) question to address the clinical issue of interest you identified in Module 2 for the Assignment. This PICOT question will remain the same for the entire course.
- Use the key words from the PICO(T) question you developed and search at least four different databases in the Walden Library. Identify at least four relevant systematic reviews or other filtered high-level evidence, which includes meta-analyses, critically-appraised topics (evidence syntheses), critically-appraised individual articles (article synopses). The evidence will not necessarily address all the elements of your PICO(T) question, so select the most important concepts to search and find the best evidence available.
- Reflect on the process of creating a PICO(T) question and searching for peer-reviewed research.
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:
- Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.
- Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest.
- Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
- Provide APA citations of the four relevant peer-reviewed articles at the systematic-reviews level related to your research question. If there are no systematic review level articles or meta-analysis on your topic, then use the highest level of evidence peer reviewed article.
- Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples.
Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following: · Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest. · Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest. · Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected. · Provide APA citations of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected. · Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples.–
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following: · Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest. · Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest. · Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected. · Provide APA citations of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected. · Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples. | Points Range: 81 (81%) – 90 (90%)
The presentation clearly and accurately identifies and describes in detail the chosen clinical issue of interest. The presentation clearly and accurately describes in detail the developed PICO(T) question. The presentation clearly and accurately identifies four or more research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected. The presentation clearly and accurately provides full APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including a thorough and detailed explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. The presentation includes specific and relevant examples that fully support the research. The presentation provides a complete, detailed, and accurate synthesis of two outside resources related to the peer-reviewed articles selected, and fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the presentation. |
Points Range: 72 (72%) – 80 (80%)
The presentation accurately identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest. The presentation accurately describes the developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen clinical issue of interest. The presentation accurately identifies at least four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected. The presentation accurately provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an adequate explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. The presentation includes relevant examples that support the research presented. The presentation provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the peer-reviewed articles selected. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the presentation. |
Points Range: 63 (63%) – 71 (71%)
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest. The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen clinical issue of interest. The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies at least four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected. The presentation inaccurately or vaguely provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an inaccurate or vague explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. The presentation includes inaccurate or vague examples to support the research presented. The presentation provides a vague or inaccurate synthesis or outside resources related to the peer-reviewed articles selected. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 62 (62%)
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest or is missing. The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question, or is missing. The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies less than four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected or is missing. The presentation inaccurately and vaguely provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an inaccurate and vague explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research, or is missing. The presentation includes inaccurate and vague examples to support the research presented or is missing. The presentation provides a vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources related to the articles selected and fails to integrate any resources to support the presentation or is missing. |
|
| Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided, which delineates all required criteria. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive. |
Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion are provided. |
|
| Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||
Name: NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric
NURS 6052 Module03 Week05 Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
Research Methodologies
Student’s Name
Institution
Professor’s Name
Date
Matrix Worksheet
| Full citation of selected article | Article #1 | Article #2 | Article #3 | Article #4 |
| Rickert, J. (2019). On Patient Safety: The Importance of Vaccinations-Avoiding the Mistakes of the Past. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 477(1), 28–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000585 |
Lee, P. (2016). Handoffs, safety culture, and practices: evidence from the hospital survey on patient safety culture. BMC Health Services Research, 16(1), 254–254. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1502-7 |
Baines, L. (2015). How effective are patient safety initiatives? A retrospective patient record review study of changes to patient safety over time. BMJ Quality & Safety, 24(9), 561–. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003702 |
Lawton, R., O’Hara, J. K., Sheard, L., Armitage, G., Cocks, K., Buckley, H., … & Watt, I. (2017). Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention. BMJ quality & safety. 2017; 26 (8): 622-31. |
|
| Why you chose this article and/or how it relates to the clinical issue of interest (include a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest) | The peer-reviewed article is relevant to the clinical issue in question. The peer-reviewed article researches the role of immunization in promoting patient safety. It follows healthcare ethics guidelines. |
The peer-reviewed article is related to patient safety indicating why I chose it. It indicates how a safety culture and practices and clinical handoffs affect patient safety. Since the peer-reviewed article is relevant to the clinical practice and it gets data from a healthcare institution, it follows the ethics of healthcare research. | I choose the peer-reviewed articles as it investigates whether the patient initiatives implemented by healthcare facilities are effective. The research follows the ethics of healthcare research. |
The peer-reviewed article is related to patient safety as it evaluated how patient safety may be promoted. I chose it as it actively investigates patient safety. Ethics of research were followed as the patients used in the research gave consent |
| Brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article | The study aims to identify how patient safety among children may be promoted by encouraging immunization of small children |
The peer-reviewed article investigates how a safety culture and practices and clinical handoffs affect patient safety in healthcare facilities |
The peer-reviewed article aims at finding out whether patient safety initiatives are effective in promoting patient safety in hospitals. It also seeks to identify whether patient safety in a healthcare facility increases over time. |
The peer-reviewed article aimed to investigate the effectiveness of patient reporting and action in the promotion of patient safety in healthcare facilities |
| Brief description of the research methodology used Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative , quantitative , or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific. | The research uses mixed-methods. That is because it uses both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. Qualitative research methods are used to identify the benefits of immunization whereas quantitative research methods are used to identify the trends in immunization of children in the US. |
The study uses qualitative analysis. The data used in the study is collected from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. |
The study uses quantitative research methods. That is because 15,997 patient admissions were included in the study. The admissions were used to identify whether the patient safety initiatives implemented in the hospitals in the study were effective. |
The peer-reviewed article used qualitative research methods. That is because the patients were given questionnaires to answer. They were also given proforma to report both safety concerns and positive experiences. |
| A brief description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected. | The study relies on statistical data that had been collected from the year 2001. That indicates that the study has a clear trend that is identified by the data. Since the data is continuous for a long period, it is reliable and valid. | The study used is from an official website. That indicates that the data used is reliable and valid as it is official data Thus, it can be used to come up with an appropriate conclusion and recommendation. |
The data that is used in the research is reliable and valid. That is because it is collected from the recorded information about patient admission in several healthcare facilities. Therefore, it can be used to come up with the right conclusions and thus, recommendations. | The research methods used have contributed to a strong statistical power of the study due to the correction of primary data. That promoted the reliability and validity of the study. |
| General Notes/Comments | Immunization helps in promoting patient safety among children. Through immunization, children are protected from various diseases. | To attain patient safety, healthcare practitioners have to hand over the information, accountability, and responsibilities effectively. That ensures the continuity of the provision of patient care in a healthcare facility. |
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS
Who We Are
We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched for a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help with your coursework.Do you handle any type of coursework?
Yes. We have posted our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill out our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications, and future communication.Is it hard to Place an Order?
- 1. Click on “Order Now” on the main Menu and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- 2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the “PAPER INFORMATION” section and the system will calculate your order price/cost.
- 3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- 4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- 5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.
SCORE A+ WITH HELP FROM OUR PROFESSIONAL WRITERS: ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT-Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry
We will process your orders through multiple stages and checks to ensure that what we are delivering to you, in the end, is something that is precise as you envisioned it. All of our essay writing service products are 100% original, ensuring that there is no plagiarism in them. The sources are well-researched and cited so it is interesting. Our goal is to help as many students as possible with their assignments, i.e. our prices are affordable and services premium.
- Discussion Questions (DQ)
Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, including a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words. Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source. One or two-sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words. I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses.
- Weekly Participation
Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately. In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies. Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work). Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week.
- APA Format and Writing Quality
Familiarize yourself with the APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in Loud-cloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required). Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation. I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.
- Use of Direct Quotes
I discourage over-utilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Master’s level and deduct points accordingly. As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content. It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source.
- LopesWrite Policy
For assignments that need to be submitted to Lopes Write, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me. Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes. Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own? Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in Loud-cloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score. Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry
- Late Policy
The university’s policy on late assignments is a 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies. Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances. If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect. I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension. As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading. Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry
- Communication
Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me: Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class. Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.
- Guarantee
- Zero Plagiarism
- On-time delivery
- A-Grade Papers
- Free Revision
- 24/7 Support
- 100% Confidentiality
- Professional Writers
- Services Offered
- Custom paper writing
- Question and answers
- Essay paper writing
- Editing and proofreading
- Plagiarism removal services
- Multiple answer questions
SCORE A+ WITH HELP FROM OUR PROFESSIONAL WRITERS: ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT-Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
We will process your orders through multiple stages and checks to ensure that what we are delivering to you, in the end, is something that is precise as you envisioned it. All of our essay writing service products are 100% original, ensuring that there is no plagiarism in them. The sources are well-researched and cited so it is interesting. Our goal is to help as many students as possible with their assignments, i.e. our prices are affordable and services premium.
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order a custom-written, plagiarism-free paper
NEED HELP WITH YOUR NURSING ASSIGNMENTS ?
We are dedicated to delivering high quality nursing papers that adhere to the provided instructions, are adequately referenced with the latest scholarly knowledge,
Timely Delivery
Respecting your time and needs, we complete and deliver your orders within the specified timeframe.
Highly skilled writers
We employ experienced and qualified PhD and MD writers able to deal with any types of academic papers