NRS 465 Literature Evaluation Table

Finalized PICOT Question: In adult burn patients (P), how does the implementation of strict sterilization and decontamination of wound dressing equipment and guideline protocol (I), compared to less-intensive (standard) sterilization protocol (C), affect the rate of nosocomial infections in the burn unit (O) within six months (T)?

Literature Search Strategy Employed

The evaluation of existing literature on a proposed capstone change project provides evidence to support a selected nursing practice intervention emanating from the PICOT question developed by researchers. To get articles for the proposed change project, the paper employed an appropriate search strategy comprising various journal databases accessible in the GCU library. These databases include PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Sage Publications, and Google Scholar. Secondly, the strategy entailed using search terms like burn wounds, nosocomial infections, sterilization and decontamination approaches, wound care management, and burn wound infections. I also utilized Boolean operators to link keywords, narrow the search, and expand the exploration of relevant studies on the subject to find research articles in the various databases through the GCU library.

Criteria	Article 1	Article 2	Article 3	Article 4
APA Reference All peer reviewed journal articles should be current (published within the last 5 years) and closely relate to the PICOT question developed earlier in this course. Include the GCU permalink or working link used to access the article.	Kim, P. J., Gallo, L., Chen, J., Yuan, M., Gallo, M., Main, C., & Coroneos, C. (2025). A 10-year retrospective review of patient-to-patient transmitted pathogens in culture-positive burn wounds at a tertiary burn center. Plastic Surgery, 33(4), 646-655. DOI: 10.1177/22925503241249760	McWilliams, T. L., Twigg, D., Hendricks, J., Wood, F. M., Ryan, J., & Keil, A. (2021). The implementation of an infection control Bundle within a Total Care Burns Unit. Burns, 47(3): 569-575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2019.12.012	Mozafari, N., Abbasi Montazeri, E., Moogahi, S., & Alavi, S. M. A. (2024). Healthcare‐Associated Infections’ Characteristics Among Burn Patients and Risk Factors of Mortality: A Study Based on Data From a Tertiary Center in Iran: Nosocomial Infections Among Burn Patients. Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology, 2024(1), 8707245. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/8707245	Riza, S. M., Porosnicu, A. L., Hariga, C. S., & Sinescu, R. D. (2025). Chronic Wound Management in Romania: A Survey on Practices, Protocols, and PRP Efficacy. Medicina, 61(6), 1085. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61061085
Purpose/Aim of Study	The study aimed at determining patient-to-patient pathogen transmission leading to wound colonization at a tertiary burn center.	The article evaluated the impact of implementing the best practice infection prevention and control bundle on healthcare-associated burn wound infections in a burns unit.	The study investigated the features of hospital-associated infections (HAIs) and mortality risk factors among burn patients in a tertiary center.	The study aimed to evaluate practices and strategies to improve chronic wound management among physicians and determine variations in therapeutic interventions.
Research questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative)	What is the prevalence of patient-to-patient pathogen transmission among burn wound patients in burn trauma settings?	Burn patients are susceptible to infections, which increase morbidity and mortality, and are significant challenges for clinicians.	The researchers hypothesized that burn patients have an increased risk for healthcare-associated infections (HAIs).	Chronic wounds present significant challenges to healthcare systems and require long-term and multidisciplinary interventions.
Design Type of quantitative or type of qualitative study design	Retrospective observational study design.	Prospective surveillance of nosocomial associated burn wound infections.	Retrospective study design	Cross-sectional observational design.
Setting Where did the study take place? What type of setting – inpatient, outpatient, etc.?	Tertiary burn trauma unit/center at Hamilton General Hospital, Canada	Pediatric burns unit in an Australian hospital.	Tertiary Center specialized for referred burn patients from Southwest Iran	Different medical centers in Bucharest, Romania.
Sample Number and characteristics of the participants	in the sample comprised 173 burn patients and 613 non-burn patients	626 patients were admitted to the facility during the study period, 2012-2014.	1659 burn patients admitted to the facility, with 395(24%) developing HAI during the period.	240 responses from medical centers in Bucharest, Romania.
Methods Interventions/Instruments	Antibiotic susceptibility panels of pathogens cultured from burn patients’ wound swab/tissue culture compared to other burn/non-burn patients.	Infection prevention and control bundle, and standard practice	The researchers used patient health records to determine those infected by HAIs during their stay and treatment in the facility.	The researchers used a 37-item questionnaire distributed through Google forms.
Analysis How were the data that were collected analyzed?	The authors used descriptive analysis to report patient and pathogen features and main outcomes.	The study used descriptive analysis based on the data collected.	The authors used IBM SPSS version 26 to statistically analyze the results and data during the study.	Used qualitative and quantitative analysis that included frequency and standard deviation. They also used IBM SPSS statistics, version 25, to analyze data.
Outcomes/key findings of the study and implications for nursing practice (Summary of study results)	Increased possibility of patient-to-patient transmission in culture-positive burn wounds, implying that there is a high probability of infections among burn wound patients. The implication for nurses is to develop effective interventions through sterilization and decontamination to reduce susceptibility to infections among burn wound patients.	Healthcare-associated burn wound infections declined to 0 from 34 in 2012. Other infections like sepsis and pneumonia also declined to 0 within the period. However, urinary tract infections persisted. The implication for nursing practice is that the implementation of the infection prevention and control bundle requires nursing knowledge since it reduces infections among burn wound patients.	The study found that 24% of burn patients admitted during the period developed HAIs. The most prevalent HAIs were burn wound infection, mostly among male patients. The findings show that age, gender, total burned surface area (TBSA), and ICU admissions increased the risk for HAI among the patients. The implication is that nursing care is a core aspect of enhancing care and reducing infections among burn patients.	Physicians treated many wounds each week, with 41% delayed healing. Many physicians used conservative approaches to wound care and management. The findings show variability in wound care management practices, requiring providers like nurses to develop common or shared protocols and policies to standardize interventions and improve outcomes.
Recommendations of the Researcher	The article recommends increased care to reduce and prevent infections through pathogen transmission in burn wound settings.	The authors recommend implementation of effective interventions like the care bundle to lower and prevent nosocomial infections among burn wound patients.	The authors recommend the implementation of infection prevention and management to enhance the survival of high-risk burn patients.	The article recommends integration of therapeutic protocols to improve the efficacy of care and consistency among providers. The study emphasizes having national strategies to develop best practices and protocols on wound care and management.
Explain how this article supports your proposed PICO(T) question and Capstone Change Project	The article supports the proposed PICOT question and change project as it illustrates the benefits of having better infection control interventions in wound centers.	The article demonstrates that effective interventions for burn wound patients can prevent and control infections. Therefore, it supports the proposed intervention in the PICOT question.	It supports the proposed PICOT question and change project by illustrating the importance of positive policies on sterilization and decontamination to reduce infections among burn patients.	The article supports the PICOT question as it shows the importance of protocols and guidelines on wound management for patients, especially burn wound patients.

Criteria	Article 5	Article 6	Article 7	Article 8
APA Reference (include the GCU permalink or working link used to access the article)	Yang, Y., Zeng, Q., Hu, G., Wang, Z., Chen, Z., Zhou, L., … & Li, G. (2024). Distribution of Nosocomial Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance among Patients with Burn Injuries in China: A Comprehensive Research Synopsis and Meta-Analysis. Infectious Diseases and Therapy, 13(6), 1291-1313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-024-00983-6	Otaghi, M., Bastami, M., Veisani, Y., Taghinejad, H., Vasiee, A., & Azadi, A. (2024). The effect of the burn wounds dressing and mechanical debridement training package on nursing interns’ knowledge and executive functions: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Research Development in Nursing and Midwifery, 21(3): 15-20. DOI: 10.29252/jgbfnm.21.3.15	Odhah, M. A., Haza’a, A. A., Al-Ahdal, S. A., Al-Awar, M. S., Al-Jabri, M. M., Al-haguri, B. A., … & Hjjaji, M. A. (2025). Nurses’ Knowledge and Practice towards Prevention of Infection for Burn Patients in the Burn Center at Sana’a City, Yemen. JPRAS Open. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2025.09.014	Hu, J., Lin, Y., Cui, C., Zhang, F., Su, T., Guo, K., & Chen, T. (2023). Clinical efficacy of wet dressing combined with chitosan wound dressing in the treatment of deep second‐degree burn wounds: A prospective, randomised, single‐blind, positive control clinical trial. International Wound Journal, 20(3), 699-705. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13911
Purpose/Aim of Study	The article aimed at understanding infection spectra and antimicrobial resistance patterns among burn injury patients.	Determine the impact of a training package on nurse interns’ knowledge and executive function on dressing and mechanical debridement of burn wounds.	The study aimed at assessing nurses’ knowledge and practice on infection prevention for burn patients in a burn Center in Sanaa, Yemen.	To evaluate the efficacy of wet dressing together with chitosan wound dressing for deep II level wounds.
Research questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative)	Studies have inconsistent outcomes about the types of pathogens and antibiotic resistance patterns among burn injury patients in China.	Can a burn wound care and mechanical debridement educational bundle enhance intern nurses’ knowledge and abilities to improve wound care management?	Trained and skilled nurses who comply with specified rules and protocols should offer care for burn wound patients to prevent and control infections.	What is the efficacy and safety of wet dressing together with chitosan wound dressing for deep II level burn wounds? What are their clinical applications?
Design Type of quantitative or type of qualitative study design	A meta-analysis and systematic review	Quasi-experimental design	descriptive-cross-sectional design	Randomized, open, parallel controlled clinical trial
Setting Where did the study take place? What type of setting – inpatient, outpatient, etc.?	Various healthcare facilities are using the selected data.	Practicum site for nursing interns in the 7^th semester in Ilam, Iran.	Burn center in Sanaa, Yemen	Burn Plastic Department of a hospital
Sample Number and characteristics of participants	Sixty studies with 62,819 isolated strains of pathogens	60 nursing interns	51 nurses are working in the unit	Sample of 80 patients; control group 40; and intervention group 40.
Methods Interventions/Instruments	Various databases, and the use of the DerSimonian-Laird random-effect model to determine pathogens among burn injury patients	Educational and training program on dressing burn wounds using a learning package, simulation, and virtual gamification, and practical clinical exercises.	A self-administered questionnaire and an observation checklist assessed the practical practices of nursing staff	Debridement, washing, and disinfection for both groups medication using a wet compress for the control group The study group had a wet compress together with a chitosan wound dressing
Analysis How were the data that were collected analyzed?	The authors used meta-regression approaches to analyze and explore differences in the proportion in diverse subgroups and resistance patterns.	The study used descriptive statistics to analyze the collected data. They also used statistical analytical tests like ANOVA for other variables.	The article used descriptive analysis composed of frequency and percentage, and deployed SPSS 25 for statistical analysis.	Statistical analysis using tests like the K-S test to assess the normality of measurement data
Outcomes/key findings of the study and implications for nursing practice (Summary of study results)	Various pathogens cause infections among burn injury patients with similar outcomes to those of wound infection patients. The implication for nurses is to have knowledge of infection patterns and pathogens, especially among burn wound patients, to improve management and care.	Knowledge scores increased in the intervention group compared to the control group. The findings show that knowing infection control enhances the management of wounds for burn wound patients. The nursing implication is that training on infections, especially nosocomial infections among burn wound patients, is essential for nurses to implement better interventions in wound care.	Findings showed that most nurses had insufficient knowledge of infections. Secondly, many demonstrated unsatisfactory practices concerning infection prevention among burn patients. The implication is that nurses require sufficient and current knowledge on infection prevention and control in burn care units to improve outcomes and delivery of better care.	Using Chitosan dressing improves wound healing by reducing the time and pain, as well as infections among patients with second-degree burns. The nursing implications are that having sufficient wound dressing protocols reduces and prevents susceptibility of wounds to infections, especially burn wounds. The findings illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed intervention in wound care management.
Recommendations of the Researcher	The article recommendations include continuous monitoring of antibiotic usage trends among susceptible patients, such as burn wound patients.	The study recommends implementation of the educational package to enhance nurses’ knowledge and execution of best practices in burn wound management.	The article recommends the provision of regular training and in-service training to update and refresh nursing practices associated with burn patient care.	The article recommends having better wound practices supported by established protocols and policies within trauma centers dealing with burn patients.
Explain how this article supports your proposed PICO(T) question and Capstone Change Project	The article supports the proposed PICOT question and capstone change initiative as it shows the significance of the proposed intervention, especially in comparison to other interventions.	The article supports the change initiative as it adds to the evidence that appropriate interventions can reduce and control infections among burn wound patients in healthcare settings.	The article supports the PICOT question as it shows the importance of nursing knowledge as a component of the intervention to reduce and prevent infections among burn wound patients.	The article supports the PICOT question and change proposal by showing that the proposed intervention is effective and a practical way to prevent and control nosocomial infections among burn wound patients.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER

Assessment Description

In nursing practice, accurate identification and application of research is essential to achieving successful outcomes. The ability to articulate research data and summarize relevant content supports the student’s ability to further develop and synthesize the assignments that constitute the components of the capstone project.

This assignment will be used to develop a written implementation plan.

For this assignment, provide a synopsis of the review of the research literature. Using the “Literature Evaluation Table,” determine the level and strength of the evidence for each of the eight research articles you have selected. The articles should be current (published within the past 5 years) and closely relate to the PICOT question developed earlier in this course. The articles may include quantitative research, descriptive analyses, longitudinal studies, or meta-analysis articles. A systematic review may be used to provide background information for the purpose or problem identified in the proposed capstone project.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.

Attachments

NRS-465-T4-RS-Literature Evaluation Table.docx

Skip to main contentEnable accessibility for low visionOpen the accessibility menu

Literature Evaluation Table – Rubric

Rubric Criteria

Total50 points

Criterion	1. Unsatisfactory	2. Insufficient	3. Approaching	4. Acceptable	5. Target
Finalized PICOT Question Finalize a PICOT question.	0 points A finalized PICOT question is missing.	1.63 points A finalized PICOT question is inaccurate or incomplete.	1.88 points A finalized PICOT question is present but lacks detail.	2.13 points A finalized PICOT question is mostly detailed.	2.5 points A finalized PICOT question is thorough and accurate.
Literature Search Strategy Employed Describe the library databases searched and the keywords used to find research articles.	0 points A description of the library databases searched and the keywords used to find research articles is missing.	2.28 points A description of the library databases searched and the keywords used to find research articles is inaccurate or incomplete.	2.63 points A description of the library databases searched and the keywords used to find research articles is present but lacks detail.	2.98 points A description of the library databases searched and the keywords used to find research articles is mostly detailed.	3.5 points A description of the library databases searched and the keywords used to find research articles is thorough and accurate.
APA References Eight peer-reviewed articles relevant to the PICOT question are presented in APA format and include a working link or GCU permalink.	0 points A list of eight peer-reviewed articles relevant to the PICOT question are presented in APA format, including a working link or GCU permalink, is missing.	2.28 points A list of eight peer-reviewed articles relevant to the PICOT question are presented in APA format, including a working link or GCU permalink, is inaccurate or incomplete.	2.63 points A list of eight peer-reviewed articles relevant to the PICOT question are presented in APA format, including a working link or GCU permalink, is present but lacks detail.	2.98 points A list of eight peer-reviewed articles relevant to the PICOT question are presented in APA format, including a working link or GCU permalink, is mostly detailed.	3.5 points A list of eight peer-reviewed articles relevant to the PICOT question are presented in APA format, including a working link or GCU permalink, is thorough and detailed.
Purpose/Aim of Study Describe the purpose or aim of each study.	0 points A description of the purpose or aim of each study is missing.	2.28 points A description of the purpose or aim of each study is inaccurate or incomplete.	2.63 points A description of the purpose or aim of each study is present but lacks detail.	2.98 points A description of the purpose or aim of each study is mostly detailed.	3.5 points A description of the purpose or aim of each study is thorough and detailed.
Research questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative) Identify the research question(s) and hypothesis of each study.	0 points An identification of the research question(s) and hypothesis of each study is missing.	2.28 points An identification of the research question(s) and hypothesis of each study is inaccurate or incomplete.	2.63 points An identification of the research question(s) and hypothesis of each study is present but lacks detail.	2.98 points An identification of the research question(s) and hypothesis of each study is mostly detailed.	3.5 points An identification of the research question(s) and hypothesis of each study is thorough and detailed.
Design Explain the type of qualitative study design.	0 points An explanation of the type of qualitative study design is missing.	2.28 points An explanation of the type of qualitative study design is inaccurate or incomplete.	2.63 points An explanation of the type of qualitative study design is present but lacks detail.	2.98 points An explanation of the type of qualitative study design is mostly detailed.	3.5 points An explanation of the type of qualitative study design is thorough and detailed.
Setting Identify where the study took place, including a description of the setting (impatient versus outpatient, etc.).	0 points An identification of where the study took place, including a description of the setting (impatient versus outpatient, etc.), is missing.	2.28 points An identification of where the study took place, including a description of the setting (impatient versus outpatient, etc.), is inaccurate or incomplete.	2.63 points An identification of where the study took place, including a description of the setting (impatient versus outpatient, etc.), is present, but lacks detail.	2.98 points An identification of where the study took place, including a description of the setting (impatient versus outpatient, etc.), is mostly detailed.	3.5 points An identification of where the study took place, including a description of the setting (impatient versus outpatient, etc.), is thorough and detailed.
Sample Explain the number and characteristics of participants in the study.	0 points An explanation of the number and characteristics of participants in the study is missing.	2.28 points An explanation of the number and characteristics of participants in the study is inaccurate or incomplete.	2.63 points An explanation of the number and characteristics of participants in the study is present but lacks detail.	2.98 points An explanation of the number and characteristics of participants in the study is mostly detailed.	3.5 points An explanation of the number and characteristics of participants in the study is thorough and detailed.
Methods Describe the interventions and instruments of each study.	0 points A description of the interventions and instruments of each study is missing.	2.28 points A description of the interventions and instruments of each study is inaccurate or incomplete.	2.63 points A description of the interventions and instruments of each study is present but lacks detail.	2.98 points A description of the interventions and instruments of each study is mostly detailed.	3.5 points A description of the interventions and instruments of each study is thorough and detailed.
Analysis Explain how the data collected from each study was analyzed.	0 points An explanation of how the data collected from each study was analyzed is missing.	2.93 points An explanation of how the data collected from each study was analyzed is inaccurate or incomplete.	3.38 points An explanation of how the data collected from each study was analyzed is present but lacks detail.	3.82 points An explanation of how the data collected from each study was analyzed is mostly detailed.	4.5 points An explanation of how the data collected from each study was analyzed is thorough and detailed.
Outcomes/Key Findings Describe the outcomes/key findings of each study, including implications for nursing practices (summary of study results).	0 points A description of the outcomes/key findings of each study, including implications for nursing practices (summary of study results) is missing.	3.25 points A description of the outcomes/key findings of each study, including implications for nursing practices (summary of study results is inaccurate or incomplete.	3.75 points A description of the outcomes/key findings of each study, including implications for nursing practices (summary of study results is present, but lacks detail.	4.25 points A description of the outcomes/key findings of each study, including implications for nursing practices (summary of study results is mostly detailed.	5 points A description of the outcomes/key findings of each study, including implications for nursing practices (summary of study results is thorough and detailed.
Recommendations Describe the recommendations from each study.	0 points A description of the recommendations from each study is missing.	3.25 points A description of the recommendations from each study is inaccurate or incomplete.	3.75 points A description of the recommendations from each study is present but lacks detail.	4.25 points A description of the recommendations from each study is mostly detailed.	5 points A description of the recommendations from each study is thorough and detailed.
Connection to PICOT Question and Capstone Change Project Explain how each article supports your proposed PICO(T) question and Capstone Change Project.	0 points An explanation of how each article supports your proposed PICO(T) question and Capstone Change Project is missing.	3.25 points An explanation of how each article supports your proposed PICO(T) question and Capstone Change Project is inaccurate or incomplete.	3.75 points An explanation of how each article supports your proposed PICO(T) question and Capstone Change Project is present but lacks detail.	4.25 points An explanation of how each article supports your proposed PICO(T) question and Capstone Change Project is mostly detailed.	5 points An explanation of how each article supports your proposed PICO(T) question and Capstone Change Project is thorough and detailed.

Criterion

1. Unsatisfactory

2. Insufficient

3. Approaching

4. Acceptable

5. Target

Finalized PICOT Question

Finalize a PICOT question.

0 points

A finalized PICOT question is missing.

1.63 points

A finalized PICOT question is inaccurate or incomplete.

1.88 points

A finalized PICOT question is present but lacks detail.

2.13 points

A finalized PICOT question is mostly detailed.

2.5 points

A finalized PICOT question is thorough and accurate.

Literature Search Strategy Employed

Describe the library databases searched and the keywords used to find research articles.

0 points

A description of the library databases searched and the keywords used to find research articles is missing.

2.28 points

A description of the library databases searched and the keywords used to find research articles is inaccurate or incomplete.

2.63 points

A description of the library databases searched and the keywords used to find research articles is present but lacks detail.

2.98 points

A description of the library databases searched and the keywords used to find research articles is mostly detailed.

3.5 points

A description of the library databases searched and the keywords used to find research articles is thorough and accurate.

APA References

Eight peer-reviewed articles relevant to the PICOT question are presented in APA format and include a working link or GCU permalink.

0 points

A list of eight peer-reviewed articles relevant to the PICOT question are presented in APA format, including a working link or GCU permalink, is missing.

2.28 points

A list of eight peer-reviewed articles relevant to the PICOT question are presented in APA format, including a working link or GCU permalink, is inaccurate or incomplete.

2.63 points

A list of eight peer-reviewed articles relevant to the PICOT question are presented in APA format, including a working link or GCU permalink, is present but lacks detail.

2.98 points

A list of eight peer-reviewed articles relevant to the PICOT question are presented in APA format, including a working link or GCU permalink, is mostly detailed.

3.5 points

A list of eight peer-reviewed articles relevant to the PICOT question are presented in APA format, including a working link or GCU permalink, is thorough and detailed.

Purpose/Aim of Study

Describe the purpose or aim of each study.

0 points

A description of the purpose or aim of each study is missing.

2.28 points

A description of the purpose or aim of each study is inaccurate or incomplete.

2.63 points

A description of the purpose or aim of each study is present but lacks detail.

2.98 points

A description of the purpose or aim of each study is mostly detailed.

3.5 points

A description of the purpose or aim of each study is thorough and detailed.

Research questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative)

Identify the research question(s) and hypothesis of each study.

0 points

An identification of the research question(s) and hypothesis of each study is missing.

2.28 points

An identification of the research question(s) and hypothesis of each study is inaccurate or incomplete.

2.63 points

An identification of the research question(s) and hypothesis of each study is present but lacks detail.

2.98 points

An identification of the research question(s) and hypothesis of each study is mostly detailed.

3.5 points

An identification of the research question(s) and hypothesis of each study is thorough and detailed.

Design

Explain the type of qualitative study design.

0 points

An explanation of the type of qualitative study design is missing.

2.28 points

An explanation of the type of qualitative study design is inaccurate or incomplete.

2.63 points

An explanation of the type of qualitative study design is present but lacks detail.

2.98 points

An explanation of the type of qualitative study design is mostly detailed.

3.5 points

An explanation of the type of qualitative study design is thorough and detailed.

Setting

Identify where the study took place, including a description of the setting (impatient versus outpatient, etc.).

0 points

An identification of where the study took place, including a description of the setting (impatient versus outpatient, etc.), is missing.

2.28 points

An identification of where the study took place, including a description of the setting (impatient versus outpatient, etc.), is inaccurate or incomplete.

2.63 points

An identification of where the study took place, including a description of the setting (impatient versus outpatient, etc.), is present, but lacks detail.

2.98 points

An identification of where the study took place, including a description of the setting (impatient versus outpatient, etc.), is mostly detailed.

3.5 points

An identification of where the study took place, including a description of the setting (impatient versus outpatient, etc.), is thorough and detailed.

Sample

Explain the number and characteristics of participants in the study.

0 points

An explanation of the number and characteristics of participants in the study is missing.

2.28 points

An explanation of the number and characteristics of participants in the study is inaccurate or incomplete.

2.63 points

An explanation of the number and characteristics of participants in the study is present but lacks detail.

2.98 points

An explanation of the number and characteristics of participants in the study is mostly detailed.

3.5 points

An explanation of the number and characteristics of participants in the study is thorough and detailed.

Methods

Describe the interventions and instruments of each study.

0 points

A description of the interventions and instruments of each study is missing.

2.28 points

A description of the interventions and instruments of each study is inaccurate or incomplete.

2.63 points

A description of the interventions and instruments of each study is present but lacks detail.

2.98 points

A description of the interventions and instruments of each study is mostly detailed.

3.5 points

A description of the interventions and instruments of each study is thorough and detailed.

Analysis

Explain how the data collected from each study was analyzed.

0 points

An explanation of how the data collected from each study was analyzed is missing.

2.93 points

An explanation of how the data collected from each study was analyzed is inaccurate or incomplete.

3.38 points

An explanation of how the data collected from each study was analyzed is present but lacks detail.

3.82 points

An explanation of how the data collected from each study was analyzed is mostly detailed.

4.5 points

An explanation of how the data collected from each study was analyzed is thorough and detailed.

Outcomes/Key Findings

Describe the outcomes/key findings of each study, including implications for nursing practices (summary of study results).

0 points

A description of the outcomes/key findings of each study, including implications for nursing practices (summary of study results) is missing.

3.25 points

A description of the outcomes/key findings of each study, including implications for nursing practices (summary of study results is inaccurate or incomplete.

3.75 points

A description of the outcomes/key findings of each study, including implications for nursing practices (summary of study results is present, but lacks detail.

4.25 points

A description of the outcomes/key findings of each study, including implications for nursing practices (summary of study results is mostly detailed.

5 points

A description of the outcomes/key findings of each study, including implications for nursing practices (summary of study results is thorough and detailed.

Recommendations

Describe the recommendations from each study.

0 points

A description of the recommendations from each study is missing.

3.25 points

A description of the recommendations from each study is inaccurate or incomplete.

3.75 points

A description of the recommendations from each study is present but lacks detail.

4.25 points

A description of the recommendations from each study is mostly detailed.

5 points

A description of the recommendations from each study is thorough and detailed.

Connection to PICOT Question and Capstone Change Project

Explain how each article supports your proposed PICO(T) question and Capstone Change Project.

0 points

An explanation of how each article supports your proposed PICO(T) question and Capstone Change Project is missing.

3.25 points

An explanation of how each article supports your proposed PICO(T) question and Capstone Change Project is inaccurate or incomplete.

3.75 points

An explanation of how each article supports your proposed PICO(T) question and Capstone Change Project is present but lacks detail.

4.25 points

An explanation of how each article supports your proposed PICO(T) question and Capstone Change Project is mostly detailed.

5 points

An explanation of how each article supports your proposed PICO(T) question and Capstone Change Project is thorough and detailed.