Top of FormBenchmark - Capstone Project Change Proposal1Un.docx

Top of Form
Benchmark - Capstone Project Change Proposal
1
Unsatisfactory 0-71%
0.00%
2
Less Than Satisfactory 72-75%
75.00%
3
Satisfactory 76-79%
79.00%
4
Good 80-89%
89.00%
5
Excellent 90-100%
100.00%
60.0 %Content
5.0 %Background
Background section is not present.
Background section is present, but incomplete or otherwise
lacking in required detail.
Background section is present. Some minor details or elements
are missing but the omission(s) do not impede understanding.
Background section is present and complete. The submission
provides the basic information required.
Background section is present, complete, and incorporates
additional relevant details and critical thinking to engage the
reader.
5.0 %Problem Statement
Problem statement is not present.

Problem statement is present, but incomplete or otherwise
Problem statement is present. Some minor details or elements
Problem statement is present and complete. The submission
Problem statement is present, complete, and incorporates
reader.
5.0 %Change Proposal Purpose
Purpose of change proposal is not present.
Purpose of change proposal is present, but incomplete or
otherwise lacking in required detail.
Purpose of change proposal is present. Some minor details or
elements are missing but the omission(s) do not impede
understanding.
Purpose of change proposal is present and complete. The
submission provides the basic information required.
Purpose of change proposal is present, complete, and
incorporates additional relevant details and critical thinking to
engage the reader.
5.0 %PICOT
PICOT is not present.
PICOT is present, but incomplete or otherwise lacking in
required detail.
PICOT is present. Some minor details or elements are missing
but the omission(s) do not impede understanding.
PICOT is present and complete. The submission provides the
basic information required.
PICOT is present, complete, and incorporates additional
relevant details and critical thinking to engage the reader.
5.0 %Literature Search Strategy
Literature search strategy is not present.

Literature search strategy is present, but incomplete or
Literature search strategy is present. Some minor details or
understanding.
Literature search strategy is present and complete. The
Literature search strategy is present, complete, and incorporates
reader.
5.0 %Literature Evaluation
Literature evaluation is not present.
Literature evaluation is present, but incomplete or otherwise
Literature evaluation is present. Some minor details or elements
Literature evaluation is present and complete. The submission
Literature evaluation is present, complete, and incorporates
reader.
5.0 %Utilization of Change or Nursing Theory (2.2)
Theory utilization is not present.
Theory utilization content is present, but incomplete or
Theory utilization content is present. Some minor details or
understanding.
Theory utilization content is present and complete. The
Theory utilization content is present, complete, and incorporates
reader.

5.0 %Proposed Implementation Plan with Outcome Measures
(3.2)
Implementation plan is not present.
Implementation plan is present, but incomplete or otherwise
Implementation plan is present. Some minor details or elements
Implementation plan is present and complete. The submission
Implementation plan is present, complete, and incorporates
reader.
5.0 %Identification of potential barriers to plan implementation,
and a discussion of how these could be overcome (2.3)
Identification of potential barriers to plan implementation and
/or discussion component is not present.
Identification of potential barriers to plan implementation with
a discussion component is present, but is incomplete or
a discussion component is present. Some minor details or
understanding.
a discussion component is present and complete. The
a discussion component is present, complete, and incorporates
reader.
5.0 %Appendices Inclusive of Practice Immersion Clinical
Documentation (1.2)
Appendices are not present.
Appendices are present, but incomplete or otherwise lacking in

required detail.
Appendices are present with minor elements missing that do not
impede understanding.
Appendices are present and complete. The submission provides
the basic information required.
Appendices are present, complete, and incorporates additional
relevant details and critical thinking to engage the reader.
10.0 %Evidence of Revision
Final paper does not demonstrate incorporation of feedback or
evidence of revision on research critiques.
Incorporation of research critique feedback or evidence of
revision is incomplete.
Incorporation of research critique feedback and evidence of
revision are present.
Evidence of incorporation of research critique feedback and
revision is clearly provided.
Evidence of incorporation of research critique feedback and
revision is comprehensive and thoroughly developed.
30.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
10.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not
clear.
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper.
Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and
appropriate to the purpose.
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper.
Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
10.0 %Argument Logic and Construction
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The
conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is

incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks
consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some
sources have questionable credibility.
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The
argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument
logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources
used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the
thesis.
Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of
argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of
claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are
authoritative.
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a
distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are
authoritative.
10.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation,
grammar, language use)
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or
sentence construction is used.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader.
Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are
present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not
overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence
structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may
be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence
structures and figures of speech.
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic
English.
10.0 %Format

5.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and
assignment)
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is
rarely followed correctly.
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or
mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although
some minor errors may be present.
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors
in formatting style.
All format elements are correct.
5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes,
references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and
style)
Sources are not documented.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as
appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting
errors.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style,
although some formatting errors may be present.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style,
and format is mostly correct.
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as
appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
100 %Total Weightage
Bottom of Form

Running Head: PICOT STATEMENT AND LITERATURE
EVALUATION 1
PICOT STATEMENT AND LITERATURE EVALUATION 5
PICOT Statement and Literature Evaluation
Monica Castelao
Grand Canyon University
July 23, 2018
Introduction
This paper critically analyzes the PICOT statement on benefits
of Skin-To-Skin Care (SSC) over the use of radiant warmer
among newborns aged 1-4 weeks among neonates in a level III-
IV Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). This analysis is done
in relation to literature evaluation anchored on the PICOT
statement. The paper seeks to highlight key issues eminent in
the literature and hence recommend most viable remedies for
future studies. The paper is of the idea that literature on the
topic generally utilize narrow samples and populations of study
and thereby recommends the use of board samples and

populations in future studies (Booth, Sutton & Papaioannou,
2016).
A comparison of research questions
Selection of Literatures utilized in the evaluation was based on
their relevance to the problem at hand. Based on the PICOT
question for the study, this research is premised on the viability
of the use of SSC for healthy newborns in neonatal care
compared to the application of radiant warmer. Among the
literature explored in the evaluation, the research questions are
generally geared towards the establishment of the viability of
SSC over radiant warmer for healthy children in neonatal care.
Firstly, some literature explores the benefits that are associated
with SSC for newborns in neonatal care. Secondly, some
literature analyzes the effects of confounder variables on the
effectiveness of SSC over radiant warmers. For example,
implications of race and fathers’ role in the health of newborns
are covered in the literature. Thirdly, other literatures have
research questions that focus on strategies that can be used to
improve the impact of SSC on the health of newborns in
neonatal care. Lastly, other literatures are aimed at justifying
the existence of the research problem thereby necessitating this
research (Aveyard, 2014).
A comparison of sample populations
The PICOT statement is based on a sample population of
newborns aged 1 – 4 weeks in level III-IV in neonatal care. In
the case of sample populations in the literature evaluated,
various groups have been involved. Firstly, the need to evaluate
the effects of confounder variables such as race and roles
played by fathers in the health of newborns in neonatal care led
to the inclusion of study populations to that effect. Secondly,
the need to evaluate the implications of the mental and physical
health status of newborns on the effectiveness of SSC informed
inclusion of study populations to this effect. For instance,
newborns with normal birth weight, low birth weight and
extremely low birth weight are all included in the literature
(Hart, 2018).

A comparison of the limitations of the study
Evaluation of the literature highlights different shortcoming
associated with the studies and means used by different authors
to surmount these limitations. This is essentially important
because it informs the reliability and validity of studies. Among
the limitations of the studies covered in the literature,
evaluation is the presence of subjectivity that undermines the
reliability and validity of the outcomes. The overwhelming
majority of researchers based their studies on specific
populations thereby undermining generalization of findings. In
this case, samples used are not representative of the entire
population of study (Hart, 2018).
Another common limitation of the literature is the availability
of numerous confounder variables that may affect the outcomes
of studies. The inability of the researchers to completely
address these confounder variables has undermined objectivity
in the studies. Another limitation of studies in the literature is
lack of previous studies on which to anchor new ones due to the
main focus of the PICOT question. In particular, the PICOT
statement is limited to newborns in neonatal care facilities and
very little has been done on the population. However, it is
imperative to note that researchers in various literature
instituted means of addressing limitations faced. In particular,
the use of diverse populations and mixed methodology are
means used to this effect (Booth, Sutton & Papaioannou, 2016).
A conclusion section, incorporating recommendations for
further research
This analysis highlights that past studies purely focus on effects
of SSC on the health of young ones. However, a fundamental
concern that undermines the reliability of these studies is the
use of narrow samples and populations and this undermines
generalization. Principally, this study recommends the need for
future studies to utilize broad samples and populations for a
better understanding of the problem at hand (Aveyard, 2014).
Analysis of the literature on the subject highlights other areas
of secondary concern that should be addressed by future studies.

Firstly, the validity and reliability of future studies should be
enhanced through the selection of a sample population that is
representative of the entire group. The viability of this approach
is to boost the accuracy of the research for more accurate
findings and interpretation. This is largely important because it
informs the effectiveness of intervention measures for
addressing the problem under the study. Secondly, objectivity
should be promoted through the use of research tools that
reinforce the strengths of each other. For instance, over-reliance
on exclusively qualitative or quantitative approaches brings
about threats informed by their pitfalls. As such, future studies
can employ a mixed methodological approach to surmount this
challenge. Lastly, future studies should build on achievements
of past ones for continuity to be maintained (Booth, Sutton &
Papaioannou, 2016).
References
Aveyard, H. (2014). Doing a literature review in health and
social care: A practical guide. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic
approaches to a successful literature review. Sage.
Hart, C. (2018). Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the
Research Imagination. Sage.
Running head: PICOT QUESTION
1
PICOT QUESTION
Picot Question
Monica Castelao
Grand Canyon University
July 1, 2018
Picot Question
1. PICOT statement under Nurse staffing problems.

Nursing practices are facing common problem worldwide.
Nursing is a vital sector that needs to be honored and equipped
with excellent staffing. It is a pivotal part in the field of
medicine as the nurses take necessary care of the patients in the
healthcare facilities. The staffing of the nurses' act as a
reducing agent for burnouts in nurses since they are engaged in
a lot of activities. Inadequate staffing in hospitals often offer
poor services and are not in a position to attend to their patients
as required. The purpose of the argument is that almost all the
nursing activities are demanding and involves sacrifice which
can cause burnouts for them. The statement to outline the picot
statement for the clinical nursing issues that healthcare
facilities face poor staffing.
Population(P): The population for this study are patients in
critical health care. Patients from the critical care units are
suitable since the patients give firsthand information that we
gathered in an attempt to discover the effect of inadequate nurse
staffing. Clinical centers with staffing issues usually offer the
patients poor services probably due to too much duties and
working burnout. The implementation of nurses and patients
was essential for the study since they have dependable and
trustworthy information on the topic of research.
Intervention(I): This part is significant because it expounds on
the way the researchers handled the population delivering the
information since they are designed for the study. The patients
in the critical area unit responded without coercion. It
encompasses family members from the recording and beside
reports. Moreover, there is the privacy of specific ideas that
may be considered personal by the patients.
Comparison(C): The patients in the critical care units are the
ones who need attention from the nurses, so, they give the
information of the status of the nurse staffing as compared to
other patients in the hospital. The delivery of the data for the
researcher usually focuses on a general question not personal.

Outcome(O): The outcome from the result of the critical care
patients are compared to that of the general patient population
to be sure of the information collected. The one which identifies
that there are staffing issues will be chosen.
Time(T): The time of the outcome will be measured after
approximately two weeks.
2. Picot statement of neonates in level III-IV
In neonates in a level III-IV NICU (population), healthy term
newborns receiving SSC (intervention) compared to healthy
newborns in a radiant warmer (comparison) more beneficial in
stabilization and promotion of the overall well-being of the
newborn (outcome) within the first month of them being born.
(P) Population: Healthy newborns (ranging 1- 4 weeks born)
receiving SSC compared to healthy newborns in a radiant
warmer. Patients other than healthy newborns will be excluded.
(I) Intervention: Subjects randomized group one will be a
healthy newborn with some complications such as jaundice, and
or respiratory distress. Will be placed on the radiant warmer as
indicated all day. Will be taken out only for feedings or when
visited. Subjects randomized group two will be a healthy
newborn with some complications such as jaundice and or
respiratory distress such as group one. However, group two will
be put skin to skin with alternating parents for a total of or
about 16 hours a day for seven days a week.
(C) Comparison: A standardized supervised regimen would be
used on both groups. For a total of 6 weeks. Using this
technique, we will be in a position to identify what group
receives a better outcome.
(O) Outcome: The group with better results will locate what
regimen is better a radiant warmer or SSC for healthy newborns
with similar conditions such as jaundice and or respiratory
distress.
(T) Time The outcome will be measured weekly for six weeks.

References
Moore ER, et., al. Early skin to skin contact for mothers and
their healthy newborn infants. Cochrane Database of Systemic
Reviews 2016, Issue 11.
Art.No.:CD003519.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003519 Pub4.
Fleming, P.J., Unexpected collapse of apparently healthy
newborn infants: the benefits and potential risks of skin to skin
contact. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 97-2012 DO:
10.1624/105812407X217147
Altimier L, Phillips R.M. The Neonatal Itegrative
Developmental Care Model: Seven neuroprotective core
measures for family-centered developmental care. Newborn &
Infant Nursing Reviews. 2013;(1):9-22.
Bingolow A.E, Power M, McLellan- Peters J. Alex M,
McDonald C. Effect of mother /infant skin to skin contact on
postpartum depressive symptoms and maternal physiological
stress. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecological, and Neonatal
Nursing 2012;41:369-382 [PubMed]
Cannon, S. (Ed.). (2012). Introduction to nursing research.
Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (Eds.).
(2011). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A
guide to best practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Svivastava S. Gupta A.,Bhathagan A., Dutta S. Effect of very
early skin to skin contact on success at breastfeeding and
preventing early hypothermia in neonates. Indian Journal of
PublicHealth 2014;58 (1):22-6
Chamberlin D. Windows to the womb revealing the conscious
baby from conception to birth. Berkley. CA: North Atlanta
books. 2013.
Moore ER, et., al. Early skin to skin contact for mothers and
their healthy newborn infants. Cochrane Database of Systemic

Reviews 2016, Issue 11.
Art.No.:CD003519.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003519 Pub4.

Top of FormBenchmark - Capstone Project Change Proposal1Un.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Top of FormBenchmark - Capstone Project Change Proposal1Un.docx (20)

More from turveycharlyn (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Top of FormBenchmark - Capstone Project Change Proposal1Un.docx